So, the way I understand this, in order for Roy to "make him (Josh) whole", Roy will be (at least for the present): 1) Out the money HE (Roy) paid for car. 2) Out the money HE (Roy) reimburses Josh for the car. 3) NOT in possession of the car, and not likely to BE in possession of the car for the foreseeable future, if at all. 4) NOT in possession of the title to the car. 5) Considered a bad guy by people who have slammed him without knowing the facts (at this point do ANY of us really know all the facts?) This doesn't look like something he should be expected to do, at least in my opinion.
That was my point for quite sometimes. What compnay sends a title to a owners who has a line without mentioning the lien? Now we found out that did not occured 1 but 3 times BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES. I dont think the leasing co has a case that would stand a hearing. Going after the dealer in this case is misguided and may be that was part of a scam strategy in thinking that whoever will hold the bag will go up the whole chain. Someone said it better that I have: HAs it been established in court that the leasing co has a valid claim? HAving the cop get the car and book the driver measn nothing. Suing the dlear makes just more of a mess. THe dealer however, should help out the guy holding the bag and apparently this is happening. Now Josh has to step up and get his hearing in front of a judge as the 2 other have done. It is quite clear.
I'm talking cheap houses. I invest with my friend, but he doesn't try to flip mid six figures, but rather goes for the ones that need serious work. Easier to make 20K on 30K forecluse with escrow work to be done than it is to flip an expensive house that is just not selling. A bit safer too.
Looks like an opportunity for people who obviously dont like Roy to drone on and on about how terrible he is. Do you guys scan the internet looking for places to flame Roy? I imagine he might be more helpful if you called him before you start crying all over message boards about something that obviously wasnt his fault. Roy did you run over Napoli's cat or something?
ai-ai-ai... someone asking tough questions here...You forgot "what was in the trunk?". The dude will lose his car. I agree the leasing company should speed up getting the car and sell it for 2/3 or 1/2 it value to complete the entire scam they probably started. Part 1: Leasing company screwed up or was in a scam deal: shame on them. Part 2: The end buyer with good faith and clean title does not get a lawyer to stop the car shipping back to the leasing company: shame on him. Once sold with a 2nd clear title, this whole thing will be impossible to solve by anyone without major $$$ spent. this is a lawyer's dream.
Ken Some here think that this is not/should not be Roy's problem. Other's of us think that if you buy a car from a Licenced dealer and the Police Stop you and confiscate the car you bought because there is a claim against it's title that it should be Roy's problem as he was the dealer who sold Josh the car. Roy has stated his position, if Josh is to be believed by his postings on LP, Josh has retained a lawyer so all is good. At least one dealer on the site Adam has posted that when faced with a similar problem he immediately refunded the purchaser's money and sought restitution from the dealer who had caused the problem. I'm at a loss as to why you feel having the opinion that Roy is not doing the right thing in this case constitutes flaming Roy. This is how I feel. Some agree other's don't.
Someone should post the VIN# of that G just in case. The next owner might fall in the same situation especially if 360spider makes a claim to get the car back.
L-Power thread locked again... 3rd time? That almost sounds like Josh/360spider/TheCatKiller has been given a 24 hour ban over there too...
Nobody is looking to pile on and flame Roy, so far as I can tell. The merits of this case speak for themselves and I am squarely with Napolis on this. As mentioned, another dealer was in the same shoes. How he handled it speaks volumes. PS...if Roy is worth $150 million then Napolis is a homeless bum.
"Other's of us think that if you buy a car from a Licenced dealer and the Police Stop you and confiscate the car you bought because there is a claim against it's title that it should be Roy's problem as he was the dealer who sold Josh the car." Amen. In that situation, I wouldn't care about the sad story, I wouldn't care care about the dealer's possible exposure, I wouldn't care about how much or little the dealer made on the deal, I'd want my money back immediately or I'd sue immediately; failing the immediate refund, I'd probably hammer my dealer on the internet as the OP has done. Pretty simple, really. If you sell me a car, you're telling me you have the right to do so and I'm relying on that.
Great post. And I agree with this 100% - the dealer should be responsible for their due diligence surrounding any piece of inventory they carry.
I think that's exactly what Roy wanted 360spider to do in the first place. Wasn't he (360spider) advised by a lawyer to do just that?
Yeah, but if I got pulled over 3 months later, cuffed and stuffed and forced to watch my car being towed away and given to someone else even though I had a title and a proper bill of sale I would lawyer up and sue EVERYONE. I'd be suing Roy, Exquisite, the original lease company the guy who originally sold the car to exquisite, the airline that flew him overseas, the passport agent who allowed him to get on the plane, even the pretzle company that provided the in flight snack that he was allowed to munch on. Isn't this the American way anyhow? LAWYER UP FOOL!!
Yep. In addition, a lot of people are looking at this as Roy being a person - in this instance, it's not Roy personally, it's the Roy Cats *licensed dealership*. Dealers are subject to a whole list of regulations and rules that private sellers are not subject to. I am not an expert on this nor a lawyer, but the bottom line is that Josh has had no dealings with the leasing company. He purchased a car from Roy, and he bought a car and a title, the car was OK (well, in the end it was made OK) and the title was not. He didn't get what he paid for. It's not that anyone thinks it's Roy's *fault*, because it clearly is not. However some think it *is* his responsibility. And I don't mean his ethical responsibility, I mean his legal responsibility. I don't think the leasing company has all that valid of a claim on the car. But I also don't think Roy is on such solid ground by saying "hey, nothing I can do, sue the leasing company". I also am not so sure it takes a lawsuit and judgement for Roy's insurance to pay up. When I have a claim on insurance, I notify the insurance company that something I am covered for has occurred. They investigate and they pay or don't pay. If they don't pay, I can sue them or the person I owe the money to can sue me, and my insurance company will step in because they are obligated to defend me due to my having a policy with them. The personalities involved here are very much clouding the issue. The amount of money, the type of car, and the people involved are pretty much irrelevant. There is no difference here than from someone who buys a used car at the local lot for $5k only to find out the lien was never paid by the guy who traded it in to the lot and it gets repo'ed. In that case, I think just about every one of us would be at the lot demanding our money back, and most dealers would realize they are in a pickle and not say "sorry bud, you'll have to talk to the guy who traded it in". Again, not speaking ethically but rather speaking to the legal obligations of the licensed bonded car dealer. The fact that the dealer already got paid is really not relevant, the dealer inadvertently did something that is a HUUUUGE no-no for dealers - sold a car that was unsaleable due to a defective title. Of course it was not known at the time, that's why Roy sold it (he'd never sell an unsaleable car I am sure), but now he does know, and now he is going to have to deal with it. And I am not sure "talk to the leasing company, I did nothing wrong" is a valid defense, nor is the "fine, sue me and force action" is either. I doubt Roy is unable to initiate a claim with his insurance company at this point, rather it seems that he is unwilling to do so unless forced to. ...and that's not necessarily a criticism. I know the whole situation on this car (the first situation, I mean, the one before this one) and I know how it played out and I am not sure I would do it differently if I were Roy.
Hear that. Though in lieu of honor (that ****e's for fossils!) - I say blow off the leasing guy and go for the epic passing 'o the buck. Yep, go full "hey, not my problem" and send that once-trusting customer and his legal team (?) after the true creator of the issue at hand. God (or Allah, Buddha, LRH ... pick yer flavor ... Darwin? Who has the most $ ...?). Thanks for the read, gents. Good stuff.
But the real thing is that Josh should not even need a lawyer. Josh was a Bona Fide Purchaser (BFP in legal circles). Upon Cat's transfer of title as a dealer he warranteed it. It was a bad title (at least in the eyes of a preliminary judicial hearing). It makes absolutley no difference what Cat knew or did not know at the time. Josh is entitled to full price plus taxes and such and then he goes and buys another car somewhere else. Cat is the one that needs to contact a lawyer and get his ball rolling. oh yea, and I am a lawyer
Good post, this is kind of the way I see it. Roy should handle it with his attorney/insurance and the other dealer and leasing company. The fact that he hasn't, and the "noise in the background" about Roy kinda make it seem fishy to me. I will say I read where Roy stepped up on a white Countach recently. He seems legit but there is a lot of drama with his dealings. I'd buy from him but would be very careful.
Ok after a chat with my friendly DMV investigator and a few beers with my lawyer the consensus is this is completely on Roy , insured or not. Roy was the seller on the bill of sale that effected the sale to the guy who lost the car. The exposure may not be just the cost of the car, any prolonged litigation between buyer (360 man) and seller (roy) will be the responsibility of seller. Providing we are hearing the whole story from the buyer and he didn't buy it in wadded up 10 dollar bills , he is due a refund NOW. The Florida DMV went to far as to tell me they would suspend my license until this buyer was made whole. It would be my problem from then on trying to get my money back. He suggested for Roy to start with the Nevada DMV today, before the car is resold. Maybe they can put some pressure on the LV dealer to refund Roy and have them take it up with the leasing company.
